Sentence Improvement Questions and Answers

Answer: D

The answer is No improvement: Had I realised how close I was to the precipice, I would not have taken that step.

This is a third conditional about an unreal past. Its normal form is If I had realised..., I would not have taken.... English allows the if to be dropped by inverting the subject and auxiliary: Had I realised means exactly If I had realised. The sentence is already correct.

If I would have realised wrongly puts would in the if-clause. Had I been realised is a meaningless passive, and If I realised is the second-conditional tense, which does not match would not have taken.

Answer: A

The improvement is You, he and I.

The conventional order of personal pronouns in a series of subjects is the 2-3-1 rule: second person (you), then third person (he, she, they), then first person (I) last, as a matter of courtesy. So He, you, and I becomes You, he and I.

I, you and he puts the speaker first. You, I and he breaks the order by placing the first person before the third. (When the sentence admits a fault, some grammars put I first, but this question follows the standard 2-3-1 order.)

Answer: A

The correct form is did the bell ring than: No sooner did the bell ring than the students rushed out.

No sooner is always followed by than, never by when. And because No sooner is a negative adverbial at the front of the clause, it needs inversion: did the bell ring, not the bell rang. The original gets the inversion right but uses when.

The bell rang when fails on both counts. The bell rang than fixes the conjunction but drops the required inversion. The sentence as printed cannot be left unchanged, so No improvement is wrong.

Answer: A

The correct verb is is: The minister, along with his private secretaries, is expected to arrive shortly.

Phrases such as along with, together with, as well as and accompanied by do not join subjects the way and does. The verb agrees with the first noun, the minister, which is singular, so it takes is.

Are and were are plural and agree with the secretaries by mistake; were also shifts the tense. Have been is again plural and changes the meaning. So the sentence does need an improvement.

Answer: A

The correction is was discovered.

The sentence is in the past ('It was of utmost importance'), and the rebuilding came after an earlier past event, the discovery. The verb must be a past passive: 'after the felony was discovered'.

'Is discover' is ungrammatical, 'is discovered' is in the present and clashes with 'was', and 'will be discovered' puts the discovery in the future, which contradicts the sequence of events.

Answer: B

It should read who demanded.

The relative pronoun refers to politicians and lawyers, who are people, so it must be who, not which or that in this context. The tense stays simple past to match the rest of the report.

Answer: D

It should read is usual.

Than introduces a clause here, and a clause needs a verb: larger than is usual for a police station. Without it the comparison has nothing to attach to.

Answer: E

It should read the minister could have easily won the elections.

The subject of the main clause must be named, since he has no antecedent - the party, not the minister, is what the if-clause is about. Could have won also fits a statement about capability better than would have won.

Answer: D

It should read indicates the poor law and order situation there and therefore.

The subject is the increase, which is singular, so the verb is indicates - the plural crimes in between is only part of a prepositional phrase. The second that is redundant once therefore has been used.

Answer: C

It is sentence 3.

For want of is the fixed idiom meaning because of a lack - for want of a nail the shoe was lost. Due to, because of and owing to all mean because of, but none of them takes want in this bare form.